Village Voice

September 27, 2011 — A federal judge expressed doubts during a hearing last week about whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can force tobacco companies to post graphic images on their cigarette packages showing the negative effects of smoking, according to a Washington Postreport.

In June, the FDA announced that it will require larger, more prominent health warnings on all cigarette packaging and advertisements in the U.S., beginning in September 2012. (Click here to see the nine graphic health warnings the agency has chosen.)

Opponents of nationalized health care have been concerned about a slippery slope of preexisting conditions that would create a ghetto for people that are culturally unfashionable.

Employers burdened with mandated health insurance by the federal government will think about yet another cost when it comes hiring time; a history of illness? No job. Obese? No job. And the only solution to that would be even more government employees investigating companies for hiring discrimination. The Baylor Health Care System is already doing it. If there is any evidence you use any tobacco product of any kind, you are not getting hired.

The ANA (Association of National Advertisers) has filed a “friend of the court” brief in opposition to a series of graphic warnings required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on all tobacco products and advertising.

Six tobacco companies filed a lawsuit in federal court in DC challenging the new rules and are seeking a preliminary injunction.

The new FDA Graphic Warnings Rule was mandated by Congress under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009. The FDA issued its final rule on June 21.

RICHMOND, Va. — Tobacco companies are gathering support in their legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over new graphic cigarette warning labels. In their corner now are two advertising industry groups which joined the opposition to the new mandates on Friday.

The Association of National Advertisers and the American Advertising Federation filed briefs with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. in connection with the lawsuit brought by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co., Commonwealth Brands Inc. and Liggett Group LLC. The advertising groups contend the labels infringe on commercial free speech and could lead to further government intrusion if left unchallenged, according to the Associated Press.

QUESTION: After smoking for more than 15 years, I finally quit eight months ago. I think I’m past the physical cravings, but I still miss cigarettes. I recently heard about electronic cigarettes, which vaporize nicotine and don’t create actual smoke. Are they a safer alternative to cigarettes?

ANSWER: There is no question that cigarette withdrawal symptoms are frustrating. They are the reason most people do not succeed at quitting.

Craving cigarettes is one of the hardest symptoms to deal with for many people. But whatever you do, don’t give in to the lure. If you do, all your hard work and health gains will go up in smoke.

On Monday, September 12th, FDA informed the tobacco industry, anti-tobacco groups, and interested parties that they are preparing to consider rules which will further regulate non-face-to-face sale and distribution of tobacco products (e.g. E-commerce). Equal focus will be paid to the advertising, promotion and marketing of tobacco products sold via non-face-to-face exchange.

FDA admits in this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) that the enactment of the PACT Act effectively satisfied the requirements of the Tobacco Act by requiring positive age verification and adult signatures for accepting tobacco product deliveries. Their alleged concern is whether these are enough to prevent minors from illegally obtaining tobacco products, particularly by category.

The Food and Drug Administration is planning two solicitations this month for PR programs funded under the 2009 law that imposed new warnings and regulations on tobacco products and gave the FDA authority over the sector.

Both RFPs are intended to select pools of firms to compete for and handle communications projects over the next five years for assignments related to the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act passed in January 2009. That law gave the FDA the authority to address both tobacco dependence and its use by young people, nearly a decade after the Supreme Court said in 2000 that the FDA didn’t have such power.

It is endlessly surprising that a newspaper whose very existence is protected by the First Amendment would so quickly brush off those same rights for an unpopular industry such as tobacco without even examining the facts. At the very least we would hope that our local paper would acknowledge that the company is entitled to a fair review of these facts in the court system, even if the News & Record is unwilling to do the same (Sept. 1 editorial, “A warning worth hearing”).

The head honchos at Big Tobacco recently filed suit in the U.S. District Court of Washington, D.C., against — interestingly enough — the federal government.

The plaintiffs, led by J.R. Reynolds Tobacco Company, allege that the government’s newly revealed, mandatory, graphic (read: grotesque) warning labels on cigarette packages — one of the extensive regulating powers granted the Food and Drug Administration by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 — infringe upon their constitutional rights.